Nigeria’s House of Representatives Weighs Same-Day Elections for Presidential, Governorship, and Legislative Offices
In the vast landscape of Nigerian democracy, elections have always been more than just political exercises—they are national rituals, spectacles of power, identity, and survival. From the chaotic queues of polling stations to the tense nights of vote counting, each election cycle tells a story of both aspiration and anxiety.
Now, as the 2027 general elections inch closer, Nigeria’s House of Representatives is entertaining a bold reform that could fundamentally reshape the democratic experience: holding all elections—presidential, governorship, national assembly, and state assembly—on the same day.
Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, while hosting a European Union delegation in Abuja, confirmed that lawmakers are actively considering a constitutional amendment to collapse Nigeria’s staggered election timetable into a single-day affair. For him and his allies, the reform could mean higher voter turnout, reduced costs, and enhanced credibility of the electoral process.
But like all big ideas in Nigerian politics, the proposal is loaded with promise, peril, and politics.
At present, Nigeria runs its general elections in phases:
- Presidential and National Assembly elections are conducted on the same day.
- Governorship and State Assembly elections follow two weeks later.
This staggered approach emerged out of Nigeria’s turbulent democratic history, where the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) sought to manage logistics, security, and credibility by spreading the burden across multiple days.
Critics, however, argue that staggering creates fatigue, increases costs, and depresses turnout in the second round. In 2019 and 2023, turnout for state elections lagged behind the presidential round, as voters often lost enthusiasm or felt their voices had already been drowned by presidential results.
Speaker Abbas frames the push for reform as part of a wider package of constitutional alterations designed to strengthen democracy:
- Reserved seats for women and persons with disabilities.
- Defined constitutional roles for traditional rulers.
- Financial autonomy for key institutions.
- And above all, a streamlined electoral calendar.
“The single-day election,” Abbas noted, “is to hold the election of the president, national assembly membership, governorship and state house of assembly membership elections on the same day. In our own thinking, it will help to reduce our electoral process, particularly on the turnout of voters.”
For the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), the idea of same-day elections is double-edged. On one hand, it could consolidate its national dominance by riding the momentum of presidential campaigns into state contests. On the other hand, simultaneous elections might dilute local calculations, making it harder to manipulate state-level outcomes through incumbency.
For opposition parties like the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP), same-day elections could be a leveling tool. Presidential coattails could drive turnout for down-ballot candidates, particularly in urban strongholds. For instance, in 2023, Peter Obi’s momentum in Lagos and Abuja translated into surprise National Assembly victories. Had gubernatorial elections occurred on the same day, analysts argue, the results might have shaken APC’s grip in some states.
In Nigeria’s last election cycle, many voters braved marathon queues and logistical hiccups to vote in the presidential round—only to stay home weeks later during governorship polls. “By the second round, people were just tired,” recalls Hauwa, a teacher from Kaduna. “It was like repeating WAEC exams two weeks later. Nigerians love elections, but not that much.”
Staggered elections also create security risks. Criminal elements, bandits, and political thugs exploit the lull between phases to regroup. Same-day elections, proponents argue, would concentrate security deployments nationwide, reducing prolonged vulnerability.
But skeptics worry: can Nigeria’s overstretched security agencies manage all contests on one explosive day without chaos?
Nigeria’s elections are notoriously expensive. According to INEC’s 2023 budget, over ₦300 billion was spent conducting the polls. A consolidated one-day election could theoretically slash costs: fewer days of deployment, fewer logistical laps, fewer materials wasted.
Yet some experts caution that cost savings may be exaggerated. Running all elections at once means producing more ballots, hiring more ad-hoc staff, and managing more complex logistics simultaneously. “It’s not just cheaper by default,” notes political analyst Clement Nwankwo. “It’s about efficiency, not just timing.”
In the U.S., federal, state, and local elections often occur on the same day in November. Voters select the president, senators, congress members, governors, and mayors in a single sitting. Turnout is higher, but ballot complexity sometimes overwhelms voters.
Closer to home, Ghana and South Africa also consolidate elections, though their smaller size and stronger logistical systems make it more manageable. For Nigeria—with over 90 million registered voters, harsh terrains, and weak infrastructure—the task would be monumental.
Past attempts to introduce same-day elections have failed, largely due to political self-interest. Incumbent governors prefer staggered polls because presidential elections can overshadow their races. Likewise, presidential candidates often use staggered timetables to mobilize state-level bargaining after national contests.
Will lawmakers—many of whom benefit from staggered cycles—vote against their own advantage?
To implement this reform, the National Assembly must pass a constitutional alteration with a two-thirds majority. Then, at least 24 out of 36 state assemblies must also approve. With entrenched state-level resistance, the road ahead is steep.
If passed, same-day elections would debut in 2027—a year already shaping up to be historic. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has hinted at stepping aside for a younger candidate, while Peter Obi continues to rally disaffected youths. Within the APC, factions circle around potential successors to President Bola Tinubu.
A one-day election would radically alter campaign strategies:
- Candidates would need national-local synergies to mobilize voters effectively.
- Political godfathers who thrive on staggered bargaining may lose leverage.
- Youth-driven momentum could topple entrenched incumbents in a wave.
Interviews with Nigerians reveal a mix of hope and hesitation:
- “If all elections happen once, we save time, money, and wahala. But will INEC handle it?” — Chuks, trader in Onitsha.
- “We already know rigging happens. Doing everything in one day won’t stop it. They will just rig faster.” — Zainab, student in Kano.
- “It will reduce apathy. People will come out once and decide all at once.” — Bamidele, civil servant in Lagos.
There is also symbolism in one-day elections: a moment when Nigerians across ethnic, religious, and regional divides all cast their ballots for every level of leadership. It could reinforce the idea of “one nation, one decision, one future.”
But symbolism alone cannot solve Nigeria’s deeper electoral maladies: vote-buying, intimidation, judicial compromise, and the alienation of youth voters.
The National Assembly is expected to vote on constitutional alteration bills this month. The Speaker has appealed to the EU and other partners for support, but the ultimate decision rests with Nigerian lawmakers and state assemblies.
If history is any guide, entrenched interests may stall the proposal. Yet, if passed, it could be the most consequential reform of Nigerian elections since 1999.
The question of whether Nigeria should hold all elections on the same day is not just about efficiency—it is about the soul of Nigerian democracy.
Will the reform empower voters or overwhelm them? Will it save money or complicate logistics? Will it boost turnout or deepen cynicism?
As Nigeria inches toward 2027, the stakes are enormous. For now, one truth remains: every election reform in Nigeria is a battle between the ideal of democracy and the reality of politics.
And as history has shown, sometimes the strongest resistance to reform comes not from the people, but from the very politicians sworn to represent them.